The Gaming Den

It does kind of seem that just making your own hybrid class is the best option, and if you can't make it balanced ("I want to blend Cleric with Druid"), that's probably an indicator that you shouldn't be doing that.

Of course, it requires effort each time. And if you include them in the core books then you end up with a billion of them (and then someone wants to hybridise the Rougerer and the Wizter). So you need to do it for yourself for every game and argue with your DM.

This thread is taking a steep turn towards stupid. I don't care about your stupid personal opinions on the editions as whole or other people. If you really want to, post a "Tomawis is a big poopiehead because he has different standards than me" in MPSIMS or something.

Tomawis wrote:This thread is taking a steep turn towards stupid.

It certainly is, but not for the reasons you seem to think it is.

When you post a thread stating "3e multiclassing suxxors, 2e multiclassing roxxors!" you can't then claim someone else is making this an edition war. And when you ask for "Any thoughts on my lengthy rant about the issues of multiclassing" you can't then complain that people said things that didn't agree with your premises.

Frank has said that AD&D2e multiclassing cannot be balanced because character levels are used by the game to determine the level of challenge a character can overcome, so giving characters the option to only have abilities from lower levels means this no longer holds true. That is a valid and reasonable criticism. He also said some over the top things about war crimes and grammar fails because this is the Den and that shit makes posts on dry game design topics more fun to read.

You can respond with a counterpoint, or you can accept that Frank's premise is true and this idea is bad. Throwing out "Edition war! Personal opinions!" just looks like you are trying to get out of justifying your position. And in that case why ask for opinion at all? Just go tell your Mom about your idea if all you want is a big hug and to be told you are super special awesome.

tl:dr I don't you think how internet forums work.

If by 3e multiclassing suxxors, 2e multiclassing roxxors!" you mean that one aspect of 2nd edition is superior to the 3rd, I suppose, yes, I did say that.

Tomawis wrote:If by 3e multiclassing suxxors, 2e multiclassing roxxors!" you mean that one aspect of 2nd edition is superior to the 3rd, I suppose, yes, I did say that.

Yes, and that one fucking aspect you are talking about is multi-classing. Which by the way, is wrong, and is the only thing that anyone has said is wrong.

Like, no one is saying that Second edition is bad because pay now for power later, or because item rules, or because Fighters suck. People are saying 2ed multi and dual classing rules are shit and worse than 3e multiclassing. Which is 100% on topic.

So is there or isn't there good alternatives to multiclassing in 3e? I imagined someone will say Prestige Classes to that.

Also, I am not going to comment on 2e's multi- and/or dual-classing at all, because I know next to nothing about how those work.

Edit: At least nobody's brought up 4e or Pathfinder yet. Then again, neither are on topic and neither of those have really done things any better.

Kaelik wrote:Yes, and that one fucking aspect you are talking about is multi-classing. Which by the way, is wrong, and is the only thing that anyone has said is wrong.

But what FrankTrollman is saying is that the whole experience setup sucks and that would affect the entire edition, now wouldn't it? Yes manning someone, either me or him only serves to derail the thread more.

Furthermore, stating your opinion as a fact without any sort of explanation doesn't impress anyone. If you really want to prove me wrong, you have to show me which part of my statement is incorrect and explain what is the correct way. Proving that one thing is bad doesn't mean the alternative is automatically good either, so you can't just skip the latter part.

icyshadowlord wrote: Edit: At least nobody's brought up 4e or Pathfinder yet. Then again, neither are on topic and neither of those have really done things any better.

I kind of did: my suggestion has specifically been used in Divine Champions, for PF. An example hybrid class they used:

Battle Adept (Cleric/Fighter)
-Medium BAB, Good Fort and Will, d8 HP, 2+Int skills, Cleric skill list + 3 Fighter ones
-Proficient with all Armour, no Shields, Simple and Martial Weapons + Favoured Weapon
-Channel Energy (1d6 at level 1, +1d6 at levels 3, 7, 11, 15, 19)
-Casts one spell fewer per spell level
-Only one Domain (may always choose the Battle domain)
-Can add the holy symbol to a weapon so as to keep that hand free
-Level 2: spontaneously convert prepared spells (not Domain) for a bonus on attack rolls for (Wisdom) rounds - +1 per 2 spell levels. Replaces the normal spontaneous conversion.
-Armour Training: levels 4, 10, 16
Bonus Feats: 5, 11, 15, 19. Counts as 1/2 Fighter level for options. "At level 9 and every Bonus Feat, you can swap one bonus feat for a new one".

So it gives you Cleric Stuff (the important thing, spells, is still a level-appropriate amount, you just don't do it quite as much), Fighter Stuff (only a little bit), and a little bit of unique stuff to help blend the two.

If Fighters weren't shite, that would be totally acceptable.

Tomawis wrote:But what FrankTrollman is saying is that the whole experience setup sucks and that would affect the entire edition, now wouldn't it?

No what Frank said is that the multi and dual classing are terrible. And then you defended the system by claiming that he didn't know the system [editor's note: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA] and he explained that he is aware of the rules for XP, but the shitty XP rules do nothing to make the multi and dual classing rules less shit.

Tomawis wrote:Furthermore, stating your opinion as a fact without any sort of explanation doesn't impress anyone. If you really want to prove me wrong, you have to show me which part of my statement is incorrect and explain what is the correct way. Proving that one thing is bad doesn't mean the alternative is automatically good either, so you can't just skip the latter part.

Well first off, you need to just drop the opinion/fact dichotomy right now, because literally nothing productive can come from whining about that even if you were right, which you aren't.

Secondly, some things do not in fact require an explanation the first time they are brought up, because they are well known, have been discussed thousands of times, and are pretty fucking obvious. But even still, he did actually explain a bunch of it, so get over yourself.

I didn't need an explanation, because I have spent more than six seconds thinking about multi and dual classing, so I know that they are shit. I know that multiclassing is objectively superior like 75% of the time because of how stupid it is to give up one level of X for 10 levels of Y. I also know that dual classing is the dumbest pile of dumb that has ever dumped, because you are insisting that a level 10 character play as a level 1-9 character instead of a level 10 character in order to earn the right to be a 10/11 character, and that isn't fucking worth it, so no one ever fucking dual classes unless they are a glutton for pain, or they did it some time in their backstory. I know these things because they are painfully obvious.

Kaelik wrote:I didn't need an explanation, because I have spent more than six seconds thinking about multi and dual classing, so I know that they are shit. I know that multiclassing is objectively superior like 75% of the time because of how stupid it is to give up one level of X for 10 levels of Y. I also know that dual classing is the dumbest pile of dumb that has ever dumped, because you are insisting that a level 10 character play as a level 1-9 character instead of a level 10 character in order to earn the right to be a 10/11 character, and that isn't fucking worth it, so no one ever fucking dual classes unless they are a glutton for pain, or they did it some time in their backstory. I know these things because they are painfully obvious.

In other words you don't know why it would be better and you just say third edition is better because someone told you so.

Tomawis wrote:

Kaelik wrote:I didn't need an explanation, because I have spent more than six seconds thinking about multi and dual classing, so I know that they are shit. I know that multiclassing is objectively superior like 75% of the time because of how stupid it is to give up one level of X for 10 levels of Y. I also know that dual classing is the dumbest pile of dumb that has ever dumped, because you are insisting that a level 10 character play as a level 1-9 character instead of a level 10 character in order to earn the right to be a 10/11 character, and that isn't fucking worth it, so no one ever fucking dual classes unless they are a glutton for pain, or they did it some time in their backstory. I know these things because they are painfully obvious.

In other words you don't know why it would be better and you just say third edition is better because someone told you so.

???

Are you actually retarded? I literally just explained to you some of the problems with multi and dual classing, because you were whining about how it isn't fair for people to just state that it is bad. And your response is to... whine about how I didn't explain how the multiclassing is bad? I just did. That is literally what you quoted.

Kaelik wrote:???

Are you actually retarded? I literally just explained to you some of the problems with multi and dual classing, because you were whining about how it isn't fair for people to just state that it is bad. And your response is to... whine about how I didn't explain how the multiclassing is bad? I just did. That is literally what you quoted.

I don't know where you got the impression that you lose levels when you take another class. While you lose some abilities with the dual classing temporarily - which you gain back relatively quickly if you do it at higher level, you don't lose any Thac0, hit points, saves or proficiencies. You gain levels for the new class as if you started from the first level too. What you said there is the most retarded thing in the whole thread.

Kaelik wrote:I also know that dual classing is the dumbest pile of dumb that has ever dumped, because you are insisting that a level 10 character play as a level 1-9 character instead of a level 10 character in order to earn the right to be a 10/11 character

Tomawis wrote:I don't know where you got the impression that you lose levels when you take another class. While you lose some abilities with the dual classing temporarily

Tomawis: in the future, try to be less of a fucking dumbass. Just try. Obviously, I understand that this won't be easy for you.

-Username17

I guess something like the thieving skills and backstab is the exact equivalent of losing the entire levels. I agree with you completely there.

Tomawis wrote:I don't know where you got the impression that you lose levels when you take another class.

I don't know where you got the impression that I said you do.

Tomawis wrote:While you lose some abilities with the dual classing temporarily - which you gain back relatively quickly if you do it at higher level, you don't lose any Thac0, hit points, saves or proficiencies. You gain levels for the new class as if you started from the first level too.

Yes, you only lose your spellcasting and your ability to use abilities from the first class. In the one and singular case that you dual class out of fighter you arguably do not lose anything, although, hey, maybe you can't use swords or attack faster, because it is not clear. But HAHAHA, my first class has no abilities, so I tricked the system that specifically tells me I'm not allowed to use abilities is pretty fucking shit.

And no, you don't get the abilities back quickly, you get them back after a long fucking time of playing without them, and the higher level, the longer the time. And that is a fucking failure of design in the dual classing system. Pay now for power later is always a bad system.

Kaelik wrote: I don't know where you got the impression that I said you do.

Kaelik wrote:because you are insisting that a level 10 character play as a level 1-9 character instead of a level 10 character in order to earn the right to be a 10/11 character

Tomawis wrote:

Kaelik wrote: I don't know where you got the impression that I said you do.

Kaelik wrote:because you are insisting that a level 10 character play as a level 1-9 character instead of a level 10 character in order to earn the right to be a 10/11 character

Yes, because you give up all that abilities that make your character a level 10 character. That is an explicit part of the actual rules for dual classing. You don't get to cast spells, you don't get to find traps, you don't get to backstab, and you arguably don't get to use fighter weapons, or attack faster. You give up being a 10th level character for several levels in return for later getting to actually be a dual classed character.

Tomawis considers hit points and hit bonus to be the only worthwhile things that a class gives. Witness this statement:

Tomawis wrote:Fighter/barbarian/rogue doesn't have the raw power of just fighter/barbarian, that's true. But instead of imagining it in the place of the of the group's main warrior, imagine a party at level 7 where the "rogue" is something like fighter 2/barbarian 3/rogue 2. It has all the benefits that level 7 rogue would, save for borderline useless special abilities and sneak attack, which they make up for with martial weapon proficiency, rage, armour and health.

Tomawis thinks the Fighter and Barbarian are "raw power" and that UMD and Sneak Attack are useless compared to Martial Weapon proficiency and some extra hp.

So it follows he thinks losing all your special abilities but keeping your hp in no way limits what you can do as a level 10 character.

I think an AD&D style multiclassing system could work if it became mandatory, and you just had some similar classes so people who want to be "Just a fighter" would be a fighter/barbarian while his buddies are a Rogue/Druid and Fighter/Wizard.

We went over this in the 5e / KSFH threads, and I think the best thing to come out of that was subclasses.

So there's a basic Fighter class and a (Fighter) subclass that's similar but resource-universal. You can't have both for your class, but you can shove a similar mundane class in there and call it good, like Fighter(Knight) or Fighter(Soldier).

icyshadowlord wrote:So is there or isn't there good alternatives to multiclassing in 3e? I imagined someone will say Prestige Classes to that.

The default multiclassing is a pile of ass, unless you're playing in a lower balance game and can afford to voltron classes together for power. If you are playing in one of these games, multiclassing into a half dozen base and prestige classes is just what you need to do, grognard complaints be damned.

If your playing in a higher balance game and want multiclassing, you get to pick from a few alternatives each with their own quirks:
[*]Classpolsion! - You just write a new base class that has the relevant features you want out of the individual classes. You probably don't just give them all of the abilities of all of the component classes, or you delay some, or something to make it not always superior to the individual classes. Requires actually writing things, and dealing with potential progression fairness / balance issues.
[*]Patch PrCs - You Lost Me already mentioned these. If they're built to allow reasonable entry, you only lose a couple of levels of progression in each class... for as long as the PrC goes anyway. Unless you have a 15+ level PrC (at which point you might as well just have a new base class IMO), you can hit a point where you stop getting your multiclass thing and go back to progressing a single class. May require actually writing things, but probably just requires you to spot change prereqs and/or advancement of published PrCs.
[*]3e Dual Classing - Track each class's XP progression separately. If you want to start being a fighter after you're a 10th level wizard, you spend 1k xp on being a level 1 fighter. And then 2k on being a level 3 fighter. And so on. Does not keep you level appropriate, since the 23k you could have spent on being a level 12 wizard has gone to being a level 6 fighter. It's a bit better if each subsequent class only pays half as much for their levels, (so you'd get to level 9 fighter), but it's pretty bad at higher levels.
[*]Gestalt - The 'sort of updated 2e multiclassing' experience. It doesn't fit a strict level appropriate requirement, but it can get close if you deal with xp properly. ACOS's splitting suggestion will fall out of this much sooner than OgreBattle's +1 LA suggestion. I actually prefer a 2 level cost, paid for in game, so that you start off as a single classed character and pay 2 levels to be a dual gestalt, but that's me (justification available upon request). Any gestalt setup has potential problems with early and later levels, as well as balancing broader action options against delayed access.

And that's about it. All of these except for Classpolsion! still suffer under the cohort problem though, and you need to sort that. If you can just take a feat to get a CR-2 character, losing 2 levels of anything to get a second class worth of options is basically a shit deal. It's not a problem in games without leadership, or games where cohorts are worse than -2, but if you have both of those things your design space for multiclassing is really fucking narrow.

But if you can deal with the issues present, you could get a better multiclassing solution for some subset of levels and games. Probably.

4e did pretend to try "hybrid" multiclassing which, honestly, is probably the best, theoretical, way to go at it. Koumei's post from PF also seems like a stab at DIY hybrid-classing.

Currently none of the DnD derived games have a system that is really written for "easy" class interoperability, though. Primarily because straight casters will almost always make everyone else look small in the pants.

With out significantly rewriting the core game you really are just left with writing your own classes (either wholecloth or from some "system" like PFs) or using tailormade PrCs... which are just mini classes at that point.

Tomawis wrote:Fighter/barbarian/rogue doesn't have the raw power of just fighter/barbarian, that's true.

No one is going to touch that?

What RAW power does a 3.5 Fighter/barbarian bring to any table ever?

Also, just to ask. Have you ever used 2e multiclassing? Because its the worst. I don't even really need to qualify the worst what. Its that bad.

----

As this was your first post/thread here ever what were your expectations or hopes that this treaty on how great 2e was would become?

OgreBattle wrote:I think an AD&D style multiclassing system could work if it became mandatory, and you just had some similar classes so people who want to be "Just a fighter" would be a fighter/barbarian while his buddies are a Rogue/Druid and Fighter/Wizard.

I don't know what this even means. I want to pretend you never said it, but it gnaws at me.

"I think an AD&D style multiclassing system could work if it became mandatory,"

No. Just No. That addresses zero problems. That's like addressing the problem of suicide by making it mandatory.

And this... "and you just had some similar classes so people who want to be "Just a fighter" would be a fighter/barbarian while his buddies are a Rogue/Druid and Fighter/Wizard." is gibberish.

• One of the problems with AD&D multiclassing is that you have to stop using your other class to advance the new one. This is straight up retarded and unworkable.
• Another problem is that classes advance at different rates and abilities are not equivalent either. This could be made to work but in practice notsomuch. It also reduces the predictive value of knowing what a "level" means down to about nothing.

Even I could figure out what you meant by having "similar classes" where "Just X"= X/Y, that does not address the problems above (which were already mentioned in this thread).

I believe what OgreBattle is thinking of is subclassing. I also believe we had a pretty exhaustive discussion of that already.